tdaxp

There's been some chatter than John McCain is less conservative (but which I guess they mean less free trade, less national defense, etc) than Mitt Romney or other candidates in the race.

Is this true?

Morris, D. (2008). In contrast to Obama, Hillary plays the race card. Real Clear Politics. January 16, 2008. Available online: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/01/in_contrast_to_obama_hillary_p.html.

Dick Morris is right on:

Frustratingly for the Clintons, Obama had achieved this likely solidarity among black voters without, himself, summoning racial emotions. He had gone out of his way to avoid mentioning race -- quite a contrast with Hillary, whose every speech talks about her becoming the first female president. But precisely to distinguish himself from the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of American politics, Obama resisted any racial appeal or even reference. His rhetoric, argumentation, and presentation was indistinguishable from a skilled white candidate's.

As I mentioned before, Hillary Clinton's style is so bad that it will hurt the country.

It strikes me that there was considerably more election-night coverage of Hillary's "win" of the uncontested Michigan primaries than of Romney's "win" of the uncontested Wyoming caucuses. This in spite of the fact that Wyoming is actually sending delegates to the Republican convention, while the DNC stripped Michigan of her delegates.

So Clinton's beauty contest gets equal weight as an actually meaningful primary (the Michigan Republicans), while Mitt's beauty contest is buried.

A combination of institutionalized liberal bias, combined with more fear of Clinton than of Romney, would seem to be at fault.

Sickening, and it doesn't bode well for balanced coverage of the general election, either.

If elected President, Hillary Clinton will continue the worst behaviors of the Bush Administration.

By this, I do not mean the Iraq War. The Iraq War is a good thing, and Hillary is a firm supporter of it. By this, I do not meant the Containment of the Kremlin. Twisting the bear's nose while Russia slides into oblivion is a good thing. By this I do not mean the "separate lanes" policy toward China: while not ideal, "separate lanes" at least keeps our countries moving in the right direction.

Rather, Hillary Clinton will not be able to explain why we are fighting this Long War.

Because defending America is a preoccupation of Republican candidates, every serious contender for the White House among the GOP can elucidate better rhetoric than George Bush. On national security issues, however, sympathy towards our enemies and suspicion about our own power tends ot make this difficult for Democrats in the post-Vietnam era.

The candidacy of Barack Obama is a unique opportunity for Democrats. Obama's rhetorical "hope" recall nothing so much as the speeches of John F. Kennedy. Further, his comfort in the English language combined with family still living in Africa, that he will be able to militarily execute and politically defend operations on that continent.

The candidacy of Hillary Clinton would waste this opportunity. Worse, Hillary's focus on domestic politics would prevent any coherent message. A Clinton presidency would present us with crisis-by-crisis defenses of policy, rather than the unifying themes possible under a McCain or Obama Presidency.

Hillary's latest:

Clinton, the former first lady, reflected on her memorable moment of emotion the day before she gained her New Hampshire victory. "Maybe I have liberated us to actually let women be human beings in public," she said.

One wonders what Barack would have to do to "liberate us and let black men be human beings in public."

Hillary is a sex-monger, just as Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson are race mongers. She is bad for our country in the same way they are.

(The sad part is that if Barack defends himself, he may have to resort to the same nonsense as a matter of self-defense. This is what cheapening the political conversation does to people. )

Such was Terry McAuliffe's description live-on-MSNBC description of this:



And such is really good evidence for why Hillary Clinton's style is so bad that it will hurt the country.

Relatedly: Clinton defeats Obama in N.H. primary.

Republicans: Except for Paul, every candidate did well. Thompson stood out. Romney gave a more coherent explanation and defense of his (current) positions than anyone else, but the effect of being attacked by everyone probably hurt him.

Winner: Thompson
Loser: Romney
Also did well: Everyone else

Democrats: I was watching the debate on my DVR, and I thought "this is a meltdown.' I wasn't the only one. Clinton's outburst was preceded by a joint Obama-Edwards attack on her, Barack calculating that his best chance is knocking out her machine, and Edwards thinknig that this best shoot is making himself (and not Hillary) the candidate of high-school educated voters.

Winner: Obama
Loser: Clinton
Also did well: Everyone else

The most important moral issue of the 2008 campaign will be the murder of children -- that form of infanticide commonly called abortion. The most important national security issue will be federalism, our 5GW defense in depth against all enemies, observed and hidden. On both of these questions, institutional pressures will almost certainly make the Republican candidate the best choice, whatever his personal beliefs. But such between-group differences does not indicate which candidate from within each party is the best choice.

However, some thinking does. John McCain should be the next President of the United States.

Opposing McCain should be Barack Obama, the best choice for Democratic Party nominee for President in 2008.



America "needs" none of the candidates. We already have the people, the wealth, the rulesets to get by just fine until 2009. Likewise, few selections would be truly terrible. Indeed, of the major candidates only John Edwards would be an actual disaster.

Indeed, I don't agree with either Senator or McCain or Senator Clinton and many issues. And I may be closer on Hillary Clinton in foreign policy than I am to Barack Obama. But the fact remains: John McCain and Barack Obama are the best candidates for 2008, especially if they run against each other.

There are two reasonable approaches to our long war to shrink the Afro-Islamic Gap. One is to go on the offensive: roll back rogue states, building up the infrastructure needed to shrink the Gap. The other is to build a strong defense: move beyond the politics of fear and emphasize the things that make us strongest.

Over the years and decades to come, we will need both of these approaches. These perspectives will help us shrink the gap, building up what we do best while marginalizing the little American Right and the anti-American Left.

Other candidates will still help us when, but they will not be as good. Hillary Clinton's style is so bad that it will hurt the country. Mitt Romney does not have the stubbornness that is so valuable in negotiation. Joe Biden is a one-trick pony. Rudy Giuliani's place has been eclipsed by John McCain's rise.

In tone, seriousness, and importance, and wisdom, no Republican matches John McCain. And no Democrat matches Barack Obama.

Vote McCain. Vote Obama.

Who would be less bad?

Who should I root against?

As someone who who has been generally favorable on Hillary Clinton, as long as social issues aren't involved, David Brooks' warning of the ability of the presidency to magnify character flaws was an interesting read.

The short of it: the Presidency makes your worst traits more pronounced and more serious. Therefore, Presidential candidates should not be chosen on the grounds of who would do best, but who is least likely to do very badly.

Certainly a warning for the Hillary supporters out there.